Why is right-wing radio declining and independent voices gaining popularity?

[Ivan Seeking]

Ratings for Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and other hyper-partisans are declining as listeners seek honest talk from hosts like Michael Smerconish over angry rants. A more civil conversation will add value to our political debate, writes John Avlon.

There’s new evidence to suggest a demand for something different than hyper-partisanship in the world of talk radio and political media.

It’s not just the sunset of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox or the dispatch of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC to CurrentTV. It’s the shuttering of a pioneering conservative radio station and data showing the demographic decline of Rush Limbaugh.

In contrast, growing numbers of listeners are tuning into independent voices who can be honest brokers in debates and don’t just angrily parrot talking points...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110513/ts_dailybeast/14060_rushlimbaughandrightwingtalkradioflameoutaslistenerstunetoindependents_1

Imo, right-wing radio and TV has gone a long way towards destroying the social fabric of this country. I see it as being more damaging to our way of life than terrorism because, whereas terrorism fundamentally unites us, hate radio and TV [liberals included] fundamentally divides us. It divides us through misinformation and misrepresentations, generalizations, and the simplificiation of complex problems and challenges.

For example, it was striking to realize that most right-wing radio fans I know didn't know that Obama has a Ph.D., that he was the President of the Harvard Law Review, and most importantly, that he is a expert at Constitutional Law. They were quickly buying into Trump's innuendo that Obama never attended Harvard, or he was somehow coddled by evil socialists at Harvard who were using him to further their agenda. Several people stated plainly that Obama was no more accomplished than Sarah Palin - a women who had to attend five or six colleges to get a BA in communications!

If someone doesn't like Obama because in their opinion he is pursuing the wrong policies, I can respect that provided the objections are real, which they usually aren't. Rarely if ever can any of these folks explain Obama's position or the logic behind his policies. This tells me that they don't really hate his policies, they just hate the policies as represented by talk radio and Fox noise.

 

[arildno]

Well, I believe that at least some 3.000 unique ways of lives were more directly damaged by 9/11 than by whatever Rush Limbaugh has said on radio..

Or aren't individual ways of life the authentic Way of Life?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Imo, right-wing radio and TV has gone a long way towards destroying the social fabric of this country. I see it as being more damaging to our way of life than terrorism because, whereas terrorism fundamentally unites us, hate radio and TV [liberals included] fundamentally divides us.

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. I think he's nothing but a blowhard. But I think it is good that we have a First Amendment that makes sure that we don't live in your utopia where we are all united - precisely because we only hear news and commentary that you agree with. Even though I wish he would retire and take up fishing somewhere miles from a microphone, I think having a windbag on the radio is a small price to pay for freedom of speech.

BY the way, the reason your "right-wing radio fans" don't know that President Obama has a PhD is because he doesn't. (He does, like nearly all lawyers, have a JD degree). By your own argument, maybe we should be closing down whatever media you have been listening to, eh?

 

[AlephZero]

I don't like Rush Limbaugh. I think he's nothing but a blowhard. But I think it is good that we have a First Amendment that makes sure that we don't live in your utopia where we are all united - precisely because we only hear news and commentary that you agree with.

But, according to a feature in a reputable UK newpaper recently, in reality most of the US population does only listen to news and commentary that it agrees with, because it only consumes the media channels that tell it what it "knows" already.

We have an analogous situation in the UK - they are called "Daily Mail readers" after their chosen newspaper (and the phrase could loosely be translated as "right-wingers with IQs in double figures"). But it's hard to avoid getting some exposure to reasonably well balanced and objective public service broadcasting this side of the pond, unless you consume no radio or TV at all.

 

[Ryumast3r]

My solution to the problem of news:

Don't read/watch any!

Oh wait, that doesn't work, sorry. My actual solution is this:

Read newspapers that you fundamentally disagree with, THEN read the ones you agree with. And always... ALWAYS cite your sources and see if sources are cited, and if they are see for yourself. Just because it's on Snopes.com doesn't mean it's true... they do rate things as false as well.

 

[drankin]

In your opinion Ivan, should some sort of legislation be created to thwart "right-wing" radio? Or is this just a rant against a media outlet that you politically oppose?

 

[Ryumast3r]

I think it's more of a rant, and a study, that is focused on the extreme radio personalities, not JUST the right-wing, however the right-wing has probably the more famous ones (Glenn Beck, Hannity, Rush, etc), when compared to the left-wing ones (Olbermann, TheYoungTurks, etc).

 

[Char. Limit]

In your opinion Ivan, should some sort of legislation be created to thwart "right-wing" radio? Or is this just a rant against a media outlet that you politically oppose?

Unconstitutional. And I know that you know that.

 

[OmCheeto]

So who are people tuning into? I've never heard of a left wing radio station. Though I suppose it could be argued that if Limbaugh, Beck, et al, are not on the lineup, then they just are.


NPR's listenership is up 45% in the last 10 years. Ivan's article lists someone named Michael Smerconish. I just watched about 10 videos of his and he seems pretty normal. His numbers have gone up between 150 & 500% in just a few months.

And here's something I can relate to:

First, here’s a snapshot that puts the shift in perspective: Just days after the 2010 election, the nation’s first all-conservative talk radio station, KVI in Seattle, switched back to a classic-rock format after 17 years. Its innovation had become media saturation—and music became an appealing alternative to the drone of a dozen Rush Limbaugh imitators.

Even my progressive station can get a little whiney once in a while.
I wonder if they have a web site.
hmmm...

Ahhhh!

My progressives are really commies in disguise.

 

[Phrak]

Yeah well,

1) Rush Limbaugh really is a an ebloviating blowhard

2) Progressivism really is an alternative spelling for communism.

3) Some day in the infinite future (never, for you non-techs), talk radio will evolve into rational dialog.

Am I wrong about #3? There comes a time every so often when the usual folks become feed up with the propaganda of these parasites.

 

[WhoWee]

For example, it was striking to realize that most right-wing radio fans I know didn't know that Obama has a Ph.D., that he was the President of the Harvard Law Review, and most importantly, that he is a expert at Constitutional Law.

Why don't you expand and support those credentials a bit? When was his Ph.D. awarded - and has he released his dissertation - or is it still a big secret that will one day yield a noon-hour press conference of it's own?

As for being an "expert at Constitutional Law" - how many times did he teach the subject between 1992 and 1996 - or did he just lecture - please clarify?

Here - I'll assist:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

 

[russ_watters]

So who are people tuning into? I've never heard of a left wing radio station. Though I suppose it could be argued that if Limbaugh, Beck, et al, are not on the lineup, then they just are.

I don't think they are turning to anyone, they are just dying. Limbaugh's target audience has always been old white men.

Ivan's article lists someone named Michael Smerconish. I just watched about 10 videos of his and he seems pretty normal. His numbers have gone up between 150 & 500% in just a few months.

He's a moderate - conservative, I think - from Philly. His numbers just went way up because he switched timeslots from morning to afternoon and perhaps even gained some syndication.

 

[arildno]

Why don't you expand and support those credentials a bit? When was his Ph.D. awarded - and has he released his dissertation - or is it still a big secret that will one day yield a noon-hour press conference of it's own?

As for being an "expert at Constitutional Law" - how many times did he teach the subject between 1992 and 1996 - or did he just lecture - please clarify?

Here - I'll assist:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Hmm..from what I can gather, the J.D is sufficient to gain a professorate, and the American Bar association has urged that the Juris Doctor is to be regarded as sufficient for employment&educational purposes.

Awarding the PhD (and Master of Law?) seems to be restricted to original research on top-notch level:

"However, the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement[127] advising that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for employment and educational purposes. Accordingly, while most law professors are required to conduct original writing and research in order to be awarded tenure, most have only a J.D. or a J.D. combined with a Ph.D. in another discipline. [8] The United States Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the European Research Council do not include the J.D. or other professional doctorates among the degrees that are equivalent to research doctorates.[128][129]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor

 

[CAC1001]

Unconstitutional. And I know that you know that.

Is the Fairness Doctrine un-Constitutional?

 

[Char. Limit]

Is the Fairness Doctrine un-Constitutional?

The Fairness Doctrine is Constitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, in 1969. There wasn't even a dissent.

However, creating legislation to attack a specific political opinion is, at least I believe, unconstitutional.

EDIT: Of course, bringing up the Fairness Doctrine is pointless, as it's been revoked for over 20 years and there is no current legislation to reinstate the policy.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't think they are turning to anyone, they are just dying. Limbaugh's target audience has always been old white men.

(bolding mine)

Is that why I've just started listening to him. (imagine grey haired toothless blushing smiley here)

 

[CAC1001]

The Fairness Doctrine is Constitutional, as determined by the Supreme Court in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, in 1969. There wasn't even a dissent.

However, creating legislation to attack a specific political opinion is, at least I believe, unconstitutional.

EDIT: Of course, bringing up the Fairness Doctrine is pointless, as it's been revoked for over 20 years and there is no current legislation to reinstate the policy.

drankin asked Ivan Seeking if he thought some sort of legislation should be created to thwart right-wing talk radio. You said that such legislation would be un-Constitutional. However, the Fairness Doctrine is one such piece of legislation and it is perfectly Constitutional.

 

[Char. Limit]

drankin asked Ivan Seeking if he thought some sort of legislation should be created to thwart right-wing talk radio. You said that such legislation would be un-Constitutional. However, the Fairness Doctrine is one such piece of legislation and it is perfectly Constitutional.

Can you prove that the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine and the reason of its creation was to thwart right-wing radio?

 

[drankin]

Unconstitutional. And I know that you know that.

Of course. It's kind of my point. How far would people be willing to go against something they don't politically agree with. Make up some sort of PC legislation that undermines the Constitution? I know that many would. I was just curious as to where Ivan stood.

 

[WhoWee]

I was just curious as to where Ivan stood.

Apparently on the "left"?

 

[drankin]

Apparently on the "left"?

I know that! :) Just how far?

 

[lisab]

Why don't you expand and support those credentials a bit? When was his Ph.D. awarded - and has he released his dissertation - or is it still a big secret that will one day yield a noon-hour press conference of it's own?

I can't quite tell if you're being serious here...really? I presume that you now believe he was born in the US; now you want to see his dissertation?

As for being an "expert at Constitutional Law" - how many times did he teach the subject between 1992 and 1996 - or did he just lecture - please clarify?

Here - I'll assist:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

From your link, a statement from the University of Chicago:

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year.

In my little brain, that qualifies him as an "expert at Constitutional Law". But maybe I'm just easily impressed :tongue2:.

 

[CAC1001]

Can you prove that the purpose of the Fairness Doctrine and the reason of its creation was to thwart right-wing radio?

Originally, no, because there weren't enough radio stations or media overall. Since its repeal and the rise of conservative and libertarian talk radio and their influence on politics, I'd think the drive to re-instate it definitely is to thwart right-wing radio. Because all leftists understand that enacting it would likely kill off conservative and libertarian talk radio because left-leaning talk radio doesn't succeed nearly as much. So if you have to replace three hours of Rush Limbaugh with 1.5 hours of Rush Limbaugh and 1.5 hours of some far left personality, it would kill much of the ratings.

Put it this way, if talk radio was dominated by left-wing outfits, I do not believe for one second that Democrats would be nearly as tempted to subject it to such legislation.

 

[Al68]

I can't quite tell if you're being serious here...really? I presume that you now believe he was born in the US; now you want to see his dissertation?

I think that was WhoWee's way of pointing out that Obama has never even claimed to have a PhD. He instead has a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

 

[WhoWee]

I can't quite tell if you're being serious here...really? I presume that you now believe he was born in the US; now you want to see his dissertation?

From your link, a statement from the University of Chicago:

In my little brain, that qualifies him as an "expert at Constitutional Law". But maybe I'm just easily impressed :tongue2:.

If your brain was "little" - I wouldn't bother to respond to this one. However, rather than dissect my post, let's re-explore Ivan's (unsupported) statement of fact in it's natural state:

"For example, it was striking to realize that most right-wing radio fans I know didn't know that Obama has a Ph.D., that he was the President of the Harvard Law Review, and most importantly, that he is a expert at Constitutional Law."

Ivan made a very specific claim - with no distinction that President Obama qualified for these with the bare minimum - > 3 classes per YEAR and a JD that is "like having" a PhD. This is one of those "why CAN'T people leave good enough alone" situations"? Sure, the President is intelligent and has accomplishments - but as the unnamed street poet said - "he ain't all that" - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

I know that! :) Just how far?

Just a hair left of center - IMO - he likes to keep the conversation lively - good stuff!